So much to say, so little time.

Thanks to the 10 day vacation to the Rocky Mountains and Yellowstone Park, my frequent tirades about the current election year have gone lacking. There is so much to talk about - the Republican Convention, the mud being thrown in the "who served best" campaign, the ongoing blood bath in Iraq, the expanding welfare rolls, the increasing interference by Jesus and God (in that order) in the campaign, and maybe even the 10 Commandments.

But I do have a job, and right at the moment it is keeping me overly busy trying to catch up from the 10 days off.

And, too, there isn't a day passing that there isn't something new to comment on . . . so who knows when I will return to the prior mentioned topices.

But settle for this from the New York Times editorial page:

There are some things a presidential campaign should steer clear of, through innate good taste, prudence or just a sensible fear of a voter backlash. We'd have thought that both the Kerry and Bush camps would instinctively know that it would be appalling to suggest that terrorists were rooting for one side or another in this race. But Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to breach that unspoken barrier this week in Des Moines. If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that "these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts."

At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.

There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.

Immigration and homeland security strategies are policy fights, fair game for a political campaign. What's totally unacceptable is to tell the American people that the mere act of voting for your opponent opens the door to a terrorist attack. For Mr. Cheney to suggest that is flat wrong. There was a time in this country when elected officials knew how to separate the position from the person. The American people, we're sure, would like to return to it.

If Bush loses this election - and I still believe there is a very good chance despite the recent polls - I think we will know who will be the GOP scapegoat. Dubya will never take the blame. I think the Cheneys will retire to Wyoming (Jackson Hole, if that can be called Wyoming) as the force that brought down God's candidate, George. Or at least George will think so.